memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Fan fiction
Should there be pages for Non-canon Trek such as this? If so, we should add others too, such as Hidden Frontier. zsingaya 18:10, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC) I think the boys at "New Voyages" are going to try to claim that they're canon. --DNJimerson 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Moved from Ten Forward Star Trek: New Voyages OK. No canon and fan made. But where should we place it? -- MstrControl 01:24, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I don't think this is something we're going to be writing more than a few sentences on at MA (in fact, another admin flat out rejected the idea of listing fan films, in the previous subsection). :We are about everything "having to do with Star Trek", but our mandate and copyright policy realistically only include things licensed by Star Trek -- fan fiction is made without their approval, and isnt legally allowed to be bought or sold with the name "Star Trek" -- seems to me like its outside of our jurisdiction (by the way, i feel several other articles you've made , Starfleet Dynamics and such, also do not belong on Memory Alpha - -because some such books were printed illegally without Paramount's permission. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :A section on fan films, the way the main page on the French MA does it, would be a great idea. Fan films would be a nice addition to MA. Weyoun 02:54, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Another problem that was brought up while discussing similar list pages in the past ist: "Which fan films /websites/spoofs/... should this list include?" Who decides what is and what isn't a valid addition to that list? We don't want to become MA an advertising space for anyone able to hold a camera (or thinks he is funny using other material). -- Cid Highwind 12:17, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::The admin of the site, of course, the same person who makes all of those decissions. Let's face it, the Animated Series, Star Trek: V and Threshold were all considered non-canon by Star Trek staff, yet they are included. What is to be included is entirely subjective. --Keras Yes New Voyages is supported by Paramount, and it should be tracked in the same sense. Not only to keep fans interested in it, but it would be a great resource. I'm a big fan of the New Voyages, and they're bringing in actors that appeared on the "real" show. It's every bit as "real" as the others. It's just not being paid for by corporations / advertisers in the same sense as everyone is used to. :Supported? Try "allowed". Our New Voyages info is located at the article called fan films. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::Agreed. It's a bunch of guys in a barn. Until they're on the air under official status, they're just another set of fan films. --DNJimerson 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) They should be recognized by MA. It's the dream of any one of us to do what they're doing, and they have authorization from Paramount, as well as official Trek folk like Doug Drexler, Walter Koenig, George Takei, and D.C. Fontana. Why not have an article for them? Recognize and respect their accomplishments in the fan community AS fans, not as dogmatic keepers of canon. :We've already decided that unofficial materials do not get their own articles. This has nothing to do with being "keepers of canon", as you say; if they were allowed, they'd be restricted to the same meta-''Trek'' universe p.o.v. with which articles based on novels are written - meaning they would still be non-canon, but we can still write about them. Unlike the novels, however, the fan films are not owned by Paramount. If, on the other hand, you mean accepting the fan films as canon, then that, my friend, is way out of the question. As stated above, Paramount may authorize the films' productions, but they do not license them: that is why we don't create articles for individual fan films. --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I said nothing about accepting the series as canon. This may be as close as we'll get to an official work for some time, why don't you just create a note at the top of the page or in a sidebar proclaiming it's not official? It's a fan SERIES, not an individual film, with official Trek contributors actively participating into giving it life. You are acting as keepers of Dogma by taking something like this so incredibly seriously. I'd heed Shatner's SNL proclamation if I were you. Uh-huh... well, then, being the "keepers of Dogma" that we are, the answer's still no. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) :Best of luck guys! I started a Wikipedia article on Star Trek, fan made productions and just as you wonder if it should be allowed here because it isn't canon and which should be allowed and which not, we have the problem of "Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball" and notability . My two strips of Latinum? :- Fan films are a fan phenomena and should be grouped with them :- If you decide against the article, at least consider a list of links :- Don't pick and choose: if it has been produced it deserves a mention :- Major projects deserve at least a paragraph. My list would be New Voyages, Exeter, Hidden Frontier, Stone Trek, Borg War, TOTSF :- Produced projects; everything else shown on our Wiki page, help yourself :- Historical notable projects are Raumschiff Highlander, Borg Wars (German series), Uss Angeles, Redshirt filmette (I'm going to regret that), Yesterday's Essex, Tomorrow's Command :- Post production notables are Das Vermachtnis, Intrepid, :- Pre-Productions ... the list is way too big and there are some really good groups.--Kirok 10:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Shran, I have a problem with your reasons for keeping things like New Voyages out. As you put it, it's not owned by Paramount. I was not aware that this site was merely an advertising mechanism. Let's just focus on New Voyages for now, and leave the other fan-made stuff for later. It really is close as damn to canon; they've got original actors, they're sticking to the original setting, and they've even put a hell of a lot of effort into making it look just right. Are you telling me that we're going to ignore all of this, just because Paramount aren't making a profit off it? If you are, then I think you seriously need to reconsider your reasons for writing on MA. - Spatula 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I don't see where New Voyages rates any higher than the other fan-made films. Everyone gets their own interpretation of Trek, to be sure, but sorry -- Mr. Bad Hair Guy ain't never gonna be "real" Kirk. They don't get to take over the classic characters and decide their futures without sanction.--DNJimerson 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :I did say I was only using NV as an example, although it's probably one of the best examples available. I don't quite follow what you mean by "taking over" the classic characters. William Shatner, in his own words, is not Kirk. The characters are not real, they are totally abstract. As such, they can't really be 'owned'. And I don't mean Paramount's legal ownership, I'm talking about the ability of anyone to use the characters effectively. NV is just as good as the original series (and better, by several technical meassures), so why do you insist that it's any less Trek? - Spatula 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ::Because however pretty it may or may not be, it's still fan fiction.--DNJimerson 02:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Is the Hollywood studios sanctioning New Voyages or Paramount is not? To be honest, I have to come down on the side of Paramount is not on this one. Here's why.... First of all, any trademark holder is required by law to vigorously enforce their trademark in court or risk losing it. By letting things "slide", any 'trademark' infringer can, as a defense, claim inconsistent enforcement of copyright. In other words, it's the, "Why are you just picking on me?" defense. And that defense has been known to work. That's why major trademark holders like Paramount, Disney, Warner Brothers, and the rest are so vigilant and resolute about protecting their intellectual property legally. Usually, all that is required is a "cease and desist" order. Sometimes, if significant money has been made by someone without the rights, the copyright owner demands to be paid the revenue which was collected by the offending party. If it needs to go to court, most times the case is settled before it ever goes to a judge. (It's cheaper to just pay the settlement to the copyright holder than to finance a full legal battle, even if you win...which most times you won't.) It's easy to look at Paramount as the big, bad wolf and this artist as a hard-working, well-meaning victim. But the law is supposed to be blind to wealth and social status. And in the eyes of our civil justice system, this artist (I should say allegedly) violated the law and profited off of a trademark and copyright that he did not own. An example that can be stated that: >>artist's name is James Cukr and he has done licensed artwork from Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, Babylon 5, Lost in Space, Godzilla, X-Men, Xena and several other properties. Since the company he did the print for, Starbase 1, was a licensee he assumed his painting was legal but rather than sue a sub-contractor that makes them money, Paramount went after the poor artist instead. That's their style.>>> Damn right! And if this James Cukr has done licensed artwork before, then he should frickin' know better! First of all, Starbase 1 has purchased a license from Viacom Consumer Products (Paramount) to distribute and sell Star Trek themed coffee (and, I believe, bottled water as well). What if Starbase 1 suddenly started selling Star Trek T-shirts and coffee mugs to go along with their coffee? Well, that's another license and it costs more money. Sorry, but that's the rules of the sandbox if you want to play in it. The same would be true if Starbase 1 took one of their graphical Star Trek images from their packaging and offered it as a special poster for sale. A poster would be a separate license which Starbase 1 would have to pay for. If they--as an official licensee--would have to pay a separate licensing fee to sell a poster, then why would this artist, James Cukr (pronounced "sooUker"), not have to pay it as well? Cukr arguement? He painted the artwork for a licensee (Starbase 1) and therefore assumed the artwork was licensed and he could sell it. And the fact is, this guy should know better!!! He's done countless sci-fi paintings (really excellent ones!), and most of them are, in fact, licensed. However, they're licensed by other companies who sell them (and give him part of the profits). These companies pay Viacom the licensing fees and a percentage of the sale price. If the process stopped there, all would be fine. But no! James had to get entrepeneurial and start selling the pieces directly on his own Web site. In other words, he was getting full price and giving nothing to Viacom. That's illegal. And this guy isn't just selling some nice xeroxed printouts for $10 apiece. Uh uh. His stuff goes for thousands of dollars a painting! He's making big bucks off his stuff, cutting Viacom out of the deal. Their lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages from this guy, which is approximately the cost of a license to begin with. How do I know all this about Jame Cukr? Simple: I looked it up on the Internet. (http://www.denverpost.com/business S0U/biz0803f.htm) Here's what a more objective periodical ("The Denver Post") had to say on the story: "...Paramount said it had a licensing arrangement with a company called Hasson Fine Arts Corp., now known as Lightspeed Fine Arts Inc., through which Cukr created several paintings depicting characters and other Star Trek images. But, it said, it has no such arrangement for the four additional paintings and prints Cukr offers on his Web site. The complaint also says Cukr sells the paintings or posters at Star Trek conventions throughout the country, peddling the original paintings for $750 to $9,500 each. The infringing works were intended to, and in fact do, copy and exploit the essential creative elements of the Star Trek properties in order to trade upon the popularity and success of those properties,' the complaint said." The lawsuit was filed back in August. I have no idea what's happened since except that James has obeyed the cease and desist order and stopped selling the specific paintings Paramount was suing him over. But he claims with his fist in the air that he has a right to sell the paintings because they are his original work. He painted them; they're his original work to sell. Which sounds like Rob Caves' old arguement about the Angeles and Hidden Frontier videos. If James' arguement were sound, then a musician could record an original version of "Born to Run" using his own instruments, and singing the lyrics himself, and then sell the recording for a profit, giving nothing to Bruce Sprinsteen who wrote the song in the first place. After all, the musician recorded the song himself, and he used different instruments than Springsteen, and he has a different voice. This new recording is the original work of this musician and he should have a right to sell it. Sorry. It don't work that way...as James Cukr is learning right now. And that's why fans need to be careful when creating derivative works from Star Trek. If you're not selling it, you're usually all right. But you always have to be careful and respect the fact that you're playing in someone else's sandbox, the sandbox is big, and there's lots of rules. So why play in it? 'Cause it's cool and fun and there's no other sandbox like it in the universe. That's why we're all here. Have fun, play...but play wisely. Okay, I'm done with the soapbox now. USS Angeles Revert, possible copyvio I removed the following additions to the fan films page: ''Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation'' 'Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation'' ; "Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation". : A live action comedic shot 'film to tape' in Washington state (in the 80's) by Ryan K. Johnson http://www.eskimo.com/~rkj/index.html. The story explores the Star Trek TNG crew. The starship crew seeks out new the Ferrari alien lifeform and the great taste of Pepsi. Pun dialogue and other humorous scenes are included. One of the most memorable video characters is a very convincing Look alike fan performer playing 'Captain Pic-a-Card'. ''Yesterday's ESSEX, Tomorrow's Command'' Yesterday's Essex, Tomorrow's Command : This live action video drama was produced in New Zealand in 1993. Produced by Essex Productions, Medalstone Pictures and the Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand or Stella Nova , it takes place in the TNG age, but has a plot twist that allowed a full TOS Constitution Class bridge set to be featured with Klingon and Ferengi plot complications. This story celebrates the constitution class starship centenary at planet Pastel 5, but a ship's distress call causes aliens to interfere. Some USS Essex video crewmembers are Internet available for their video production recollectionshttp://www.kiwi-house.com/. Some this video's main production crew moved into the professional film industry ranks by working on the Lord of the rings trilogy. ''The REDSHIRT Filmette Series'' The REDSHIRT Filmette Series ;The REDSHIRT Filmette Series, 'Life Insurance' #1 : A southern California live action 'filmette/short' video series shot by the volunteers and Genovese Cine Productions 2000 http://www.geocities.com/agenovese1/RedShirtfacts.html. This filmette series explores the TOS redshirt traditions with comedic parody. **Two additional filmettes are in current production. Its most memorable character is the lead fan actor playing the bewildered redshirt crewman. This VHS tape series has been debuted at many major scifi conventions. Several west coast sci-fi conventions have screened this video.http://www.geocities.com/movieactorsag_2000/fanresume.html Some other events that screened this video are Shoreleave Con http://www.shore-leave.com in USA and the video has been premiered through European clubs like the International Science Fiction Federation http://www.isff.ukhq.co.uk.Pat1 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC) This text is copied from http://experts.about.com/e/s/st/Star_Trek,_other_storylines.htm. There is also a discussion about the removal of the Redshirts series info from Wikipedia at wikipedia:User talk:Netwriter. Looks like it got rather nasty there. There's also the issue of whether these pass the Google test or not. -- Renegade54 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Moved from Vfd Star Trek: New Voyages Fan films do not get there own articles, they get an entryin the fan films article. New Voyages already has an entry there. This might be a candidate for immediate deletion. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :The page was deleted twice, once by Captain Mike (non-canon, non-valid, voted for deletion after 2+ days on VfD) 4 September 2005, second time by me (non canon, voted to delete on 4 September 2005; speedy delete candidate per #6) 6 October 2005. However something must be done to prevent the page being created again. I vote redirect and lock -- Kobi 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :: Redirect and lock and smile --Alan del Beccio 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Redirect it, lock it, and forget it! - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) :*I've already redirect'''ed this, btw, since it had already been previously deleted. --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Star Trek: Of Gods and Men ;Star Trek: Of Gods and Men '''Merge with Fan films and Delete. As per our usual argument against fan films getting their own article, no matter how many Star Trek actors appear in it... (For the record, wouldn't this be listed under "Of Gods..." not "Star Trek: Of Gods..."?) - AJ Halliwell 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Merge' and Delete, as per how we have done this in the past. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :*'merge', and at best redirect as per the new voyages that was done earlier this week. -- Sulfur 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Where are the episodes for Star Trek: Of Gods And Men!? *Ok, so, I go to on www.StarTrekOfGodsAndMen.com and I all I see is the all new new trailer! I thought Episode 1, of the 3 part mini-series, was coming out in December of 2006! Can someone help me clear this up!? --Captain Zman 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC) :Probably a better question to ask them then us. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Star Trek: Frontiers I removed the info on 'Star Trek: Frontiers', since it is a script-based fan fic and not a fan film. Instead, there is an article about it on the fan fiction page --Mada101 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)